incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: re-implement clvm
Date Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:30:33 GMT
sure, just let me know how to send it in.

On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
> Could you send the patch to reviewboard, and remove the snapshot part?
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 3:09 PM
>> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: re-implement clvm
>>
>> Here's the refactored patch. The CLVM stuff is basically a copy of the
>> RBD additions; and the patch also includes the original changes to
>> managesnapshot.sh, which is unmodified.
>>
>> I'm personally more concerned about the core functionality at this
>> point, I can go through and re-implement the snapshot stuff, but if
>> the core stuff can't be pulled in due to licensing then it's not worth
>> the trouble to redo the snapshotting. If there's anyone in a position
>> of authority to address the licensing stuff any input would be
>> appreciated.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Marcus
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:21 PM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:
>> > The most complicated part in rommer's patch is LVM snapshot. If
>> snapshot support is not a must, then adding CLVM is simple as RBD.
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com]
>> >> Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2012 1:33 PM
>> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> >> Subject: Re: re-implement clvm
>> >>
>> >> Ok, so I've created a refactored patch that seems to work. It was
>> >> pretty much entirely the RBD additions that were blocking the
>> original
>> >> from being rolled back in. If a developer would be willing to take
>> on
>> >> the whole license issue and see this functionality put back in I'd
>> >> still be willing to pay half of the bounty ($400).  As the code
>> looks,
>> >> the changes are fairly minor, and I'm not sure how novel you'd have
>> to
>> >> get avoid the license issues (or that there's any easy alternative
>> way
>> >> to change the code sufficiently)
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Wido den Hollander
>> <wido@widodh.nl>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On 07/31/2012 09:48 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'd be happy to try more if I had access to any contact info.
>> As
>> >> it
>> >> >>> is, things in the surrounding code have changed enough that
a
>> bit
>> >> of
>> >> >>> re-factoring would need to be done even if there were permission.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> My hunch is that unless he's switched roles, once the new
>> version
>> >> is
>> >> >>> released he may come out of the woodwork wondering why that
>> thing
>> >> he
>> >> >>> has a need for and developed is gone.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> After writing the last RBD implementation this CLVM seems trivial.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> A lot of code is still in there and looking at the commit where
>> it
>> >> got
>> >> >> removed it wont be that much work.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The problem (and I'm not a licensing expert) is that if I would
>> >> implement
>> >> >> CLVM again it would look a lot like the original code, do we have
>> to
>> >> refer
>> >> >> to the old author for that?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I'm assuming here that we won't be able to contact the original
>> >> author, but
>> >> >> we want to keep the CLVM functionality for 4.0.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Wido
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Actually - you should compare the original patches, with what was
>> >> reverted. :
>> >> > http://bugs.cloudstack.org/browse/CS-10317
>> >> >
>> >> > There was already something of a rewrite when Edison changed how
>> some
>> >> > of the storage was handled (which is the iteration that was
>> pulled).
>> >> >
>> >> > IANAL either, so I won't bother to even try and answer that
>> question.
>> >> >
>> >> > --David

Mime
View raw message